Audit The Fed Vote Proves Democrats are Liars

[Centinel]

That's not a very good reason…

The fact that the constitution does not grant congress the power to enact a law is not a good reason to oppose such a law? Seriously? The constitution is the contract the states made between themselves, and it needs to be followed, not violated.

 

[Hedgology]

The fact that the constitution does not grant congress the power to enact a law is not a good reason to oppose such a law? Seriously? The constitution is the contract the states made between themselves, and it needs to be followed, not violated.

Based on a financial perspective, I find that it isn't a good reason because the constitutional powers of Congress have nothing to do with the Fed's mandate of achieving full employment or maintaining price stability.

Based on a legal perspective, it's not a very good reason, either. The first U.S. bank was never challenged in court as to whether the government had any power to create a central bank. The second one was, but was later found that the Second National Bank's charter was constitutional due to the reasoning behind the implied power Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. Unless the Supreme Court reverses itself, the Federal Reserve is considered to be constitutional within the confines of a broadly interpreted constitution.

 

[Toro]

Elizabeth Warren, who rails against banksters, voted against an audit of the vehicle they use to screw the public. What a hypocrite. The bill died by a vote of 53 to 44 (needing 60 votes to avoid a filibuster), thanks to most Democratic Senators voting "nay." Remember that vote the next time those statists claim to care about "ordinary folks."

Senate rejects Paul’s push to audit the Fed

Good job.

The Audit the Fed bill is just another way of Congress trying to control monetary policy.

That's a terrible idea.

Who wants Nancy Pelosi controlling the money supply?

Rand Paul supporters, apparently.

 

[Toro]

Only the private sector needs to be audited, government is to be trusted /sarcasm * infinity

The Fed is already audited in the same way as a private sector company.

But this bill isn't what that's about.

 

[Centinel]

Based on a financial perspective, I find that it isn't a good reason because the constitutional powers of Congress have nothing to do with the Fed's mandate of achieving full employment or maintaining price stability.

The fed can only exist if congress has the constitutional authority to charter it. I don't see any such power listed in article I, section 8. Can you point it out for me?

Based on a legal perspective, it's not a very good reason, either. The first U.S. bank was never challenged in court as to whether the government had any power to create a central bank. The second one was, but was later found that the Second National Bank's charter was constitutional due to the reasoning behind the implied power Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. Unless the Supreme Court reverses itself, the Federal Reserve is considered to be constitutional within the confines of a broadly interpreted constitution.

Which of congress' enumerated powers would permit it to legally create the fed?

 

[Centinel]

The Audit the Fed bill is just another way of Congress trying to control monetary policy.

That's a terrible idea.

Who wants Nancy Pelosi controlling the money supply?

Rand Paul supporters, apparently.

None of congress' constitutionally enumerated powers would allow it to control monetary policy, and none of those powers would allow it to create the federal reserve. Neither one is constitutional.

 

[Hedgology]

Based on a financial perspective, I find that it isn't a good reason because the constitutional powers of Congress have nothing to do with the Fed's mandate of achieving full employment or maintaining price stability.

The fed can only exist if congress has the constitutional authority to charter it. I don't see any such power listed in article I, section 8. Can you point it out for me?

Based on a legal perspective, it's not a very good reason, either. The first U.S. bank was never challenged in court as to whether the government had any power to create a central bank. The second one was, but was later found that the Second National Bank's charter was constitutional due to the reasoning behind the implied power Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. Unless the Supreme Court reverses itself, the Federal Reserve is considered to be constitutional within the confines of a broadly interpreted constitution.

Which of congress' enumerated powers would permit it to legally create the fed?

Did the necessary and proper clause somehow elude?

 

[Centinel]

Did the necessary and proper clause somehow elude?

Necessary and property to carry into execution the FOREGOING powers.

So which of the FOREGOING powers would allow it to legally create the fed?

 

[Toro]

None of congress' constitutionally enumerated powers would allow it to control monetary policy, and none of those powers would allow it to create the federal reserve. Neither one is constitutional.

Why aren't you a Supreme Court justice, with your incredibly incissive legal observations?

 

[Hedgology]

Did the necessary and proper clause somehow elude?

Necessary and property to carry into execution the FOREGOING powers.

So which of the FOREGOING powers would allow it to legally create the fed?

The necessary and proper clause are the foregoing powers that allows it to create the Fed. I'm really not so sure why that is difficult for you to understand…

 

[Centinel]

The necessary and proper clause are the foregoing powers that allows it to create the Fed. I'm really not so sure why that is difficult for you to understand…

"The necessary and proper clause are the foregoing powers..."??? What? This isn't even English.

The necessary and proper clause simply grants congress the power to enact laws that are necessary and proper to carry into execution the previously enumerated powers.

So which on the previously listed powers would allow congress to create the fed?

 

[Centinel]

Why aren't you a Supreme Court justice, with your incredibly incissive legal observations?

Are you saying that only a supreme court justice can read and understand the constitution?

If that's the case, how did the convention delegates who signed off on it even know what they were agreeing to? Also, how did the members of the state ratifying conventions even know what it was they were agreeing to?

 

[Hedgology]

"The necessary and proper clause are the foregoing powers..."??? What? This isn't even English.

That would depend on whether English is your second language, because there isn't anything grammatically incorrect about that statement.

The necessary and proper clause simply grants congress the power to enact laws that are necessary and proper to carry into execution the previously enumerated powers.

Any law not clearly expressed by the constitution can be considered an implied power if it serves a common good. As long as it serves a common good, it can be utilized for any one of the specific enumerated powers.

 

[P@triot]

"Audit The Fed Vote Proves Democrats are Liars"

Actually it proves that libertarians and others on the ridiculous right childish, naïve, and wrong.

No - it proves exactly what Dont Taz Me Bro said it proves - that Dumbocrats are liars. It speaks volumes CCJ that you are so deeply afraid of transparency. Typical left-wing hatriot.

 

[P@triot]

Why aren't you a Supreme Court justice, with your incredibly incissive legal observations?

Are you saying that only a supreme court justice can read and understand the constitution?

If that's the case, how did the convention delegates who signed off on it even know what they were agreeing to? Also, how did the members of the state ratifying conventions even know what it was they were agreeing to?

That's the typical left-wing hatriot narrative on the U.S. Constitution. They can't deny it so they attempt to discredit your ability to read it. It's dumb as hell, but that's a hatriot for you. They act like three pages are more than any "normal" person could read.

 

[owebo]

Such as?

Go read the bill, it's published and details exactly the activities which are currently not subject to scrutiny; if you want some examples of off audit - agreements with foreign banks, funding facilities, details of its discount window operations and open market operations; the agreements with foreign banks is the one in particular that raises my ire.

The NY Fed publishes details on the Fed's Open Market Operations, both temporary and permanent, as well as their discount window operations. These are regularly audited .

The Fed doesn't really engage in lending facilities, but even when it did, the Term Auction Facility (TAF), Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), and Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) were the only tools at their disposal, which was regularly reviewed during the financial crisis when it was utilized.

Again, I'm not sure what you think isn't regularly reviewed, but the only activities that are not audited (by law) are monetary policy operations and transactions carried out by the Fed on behalf of other central banks. The fact that you have a difficult time telling me what should be audited tells me you don't have a good grasp on how central banks operate.

They're already "politicized" and becoming increasingly more so given the fact that the Fed is fighting so hard to keep its secrets.

Monetary policy is politicized because central banks don't want you to review complicated matters? Do you know what the word politicized means?

The fact of the matter is that the Fed doesn't want its secret sauce examined because it wants to keep the citizenry in the dark regarding the details of its monetary machinations, it's protecting the status quo because the status quo is exceedingly profitable for it and it's cronies.

There is absolutely no justification for the unelected officials of the central bank which has been given power over our money and credit by the American People having the authority to deny scrutiny of ALL of it's activities by the Representatives of the American People.

OR, maybe the Fed doesn't what you to see their secrets is because, historically, in capitalist economies, elected leadership have set the objectives of central banks. There is already a ton of evidence, backed up by economic research, that giving politicians power over interest rates and the supply of credit hurts the economy over time. This is because politicians, who only care about getting re-election, prefer more economic growth now, even if it means tons of inflation later on.

Given your sentiment, it doesn't really sound like you have a high aptitude for economics. Considering this, I have no interest in allowing the fed to give you, and the rest of people who think like you, access to information that is well above your pay grade.

That is, unless you are all planning on getting a basic B.S. in Economics.

You vote Hillary?

 

[owebo]

It's tax payers money going to the gov't. Why shouldn't there be an audit of the whole dang shebang?

If they have nothing to hide then they should say go ahead. We should know how they handle the currency and money of this country.

Yes............they should be audited.

The Federal Reserve isn't funded by government.

They control our currency..............which is a countries currency...........so screw them...

Audit their asses.

That's not correct. The Fed influences currency via interest rates.

So, it's had zero influence the past 8 or so years.....and were essentially worthless to us then.....

 

[P@triot]

It is as unbelievable as it is disturbing that the left fears transparency. Why wouldn't you want a thorough audit of all government departments?!?

"Since the 2008 Fed-created economic meltdown, more Americans have become aware of the Federal Reserve’s responsibility for America’s economic problems. This growing anti-Fed sentiment is one of the key factors behind the liberty movement’s growth and represents the most serious challenge to the Fed’s legitimacy in its history. This movement has made “Audit the Fed” into a major national issue that is now closer than ever to being signed into law.

Audit the Fed is not the only focus of the growing anti-Fed movement. For example, this Wednesday the Arizona Senate Finance and Rules Committees will consider legislation (HB 2014) officially defining gold, silver, and other precious metals as legal tender. The bill also exempts transactions in precious metals from state capital gains taxes, thus ensuring that people are not punished by the taxman for rejecting Federal Reserve notes in favor of gold or silver. Since inflation increases the value of precious metals, these taxes give the government one more way to profit from the Federal Reserve’s currency debasement."

Arizona Challenges the Fed’s Money Monopoly